BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 237/2004 Filed on 04..06..2004<br /> Dated :15..07..2008<br /> Complainants:<br /> 1.M. Krishnan Nair, (Retd.Dy.S.P.)President,Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum, Reg.No.1351/90, Lekshmi Vihar, Plot No.18, Padma Nagar, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram – 23.<br /> <br /> Addl. 2nd complainant: <br /> 2. Gokulnath, T.C.37/187, Padma Nagar, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Anil Abraham, Proprietor, Vijay Opticals and Netra Bhavan, Redcross Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 37. <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 07..02..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2008, the Forum on 15..07..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant's grandson minor Jishnunath is an eye patient from 17..10..2003 onwards. The Ophthalmic Surgeon prescribed to use glass as mentioned in the ticket dated 17..10..2003. The parents of the patient purchased spectacle from the opposite party's shop on 17..10..2003 by paying Rs. 350/-. On 17..05..2004 the patient was examined by the Ophthalmic Surgeon and advised to change the glass of the spectacle. The patient's parents went to the opposite party's shop and entrusted the spectacle to the opposite party for changing the glass. The opposite party informed after an hour that right nose pad of the spectacle was not seen. So new glass should not be replaced without new frame of the spectacle. The opposite party compelled to purchase new spectacle from his shop. The parents of the patient refused to do so. As per the complaint the right nose pad of the spectacle was lost due to the negligent act of the opposite party. Due to the negligence of the opposite party the parents of the patient sustained financial loss and mental agony. Hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for the redressal of his grievances.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party remains ex-parte.<br /> 3.The complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and 2 documents were marked as Ext. P1 & P2. The complainant has also produced the spectacle without right nose pad as MO-1 and optical box issued by the opposite party as MO-II.<br /> <br /> 4. The points to be ascertained:<br /> <br /> (i)Whether the complainant is a consumer?<br /> (ii)Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party?<br /> <br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii) : The 1st complainant in this case is Mr. Krishnan Nair 2nd complainant is his son Gokulnath. The 1st complainant is the President of Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum. The spectacle is purchased for Jishnunath is the grandson of 1st complainant. The complainants stated that the spectacle was purchased from the opposite party's shop on 17..10..2003. The complainant did not produced any proof to show that transaction. The complainant argued that the opposite party did not issued bill for the purchase. The cost of the spectacle was Rs.350/-, we have seen a seal of opposite party on the overleaf of Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is the photocopy of the o.p ticket and Ext. P1 is the prescription ticket on 30..04..2004. The complainant approached the opposite party on 17..05..2004 for changing the glass of the spectacle they have purchased on 17..10..2003. Then the opposite party informed that the right nose pad of the spectacle was not seen, therefore it was not possible to replace the new glass. The complainant stated that the opposite party compelled them to purchase new spectacle from his shop. And also the complainant alleges that the right nose pad of the spectacle was lost due to the negligence of the opposite party, at the time of entrustment of the spectacle to the opposite party the right nose pad was there. But the complainant has no evidence to prove that the complainants in this case have no evidence to prove their case. No evidence to prove that the complainant approached the opposite party and entrusted to change the glass of the spectacle or any service charge paid by the complainant to change their glass. As per the Consumer Protection Act Section 2(d)(ii) a consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.<br /> <br /> 6. In this case the complainant has stated that the opposite party informed the complainant that it was difficult to change the glass without right nose pad and also the opposite party suggested to purchase a new one. The complainant refused to do so. The transaction between the complainant and opposite party ended there. There is no evidence to prove that the complainant is the consumer of opposite party. The present dispute is not with regard to the purchase of the spectacle. The complainant has no case that the opposite party has assured any warranty. As such there is no consumer relationship with the opposite party. For the foregoing reasons this Forum dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of July, 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> O.P.No.237/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I. Complainant's witness:<br /> <br /> PW1 : M. Krishnan Nair<br /> <br /> II. Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> P1 : Photocopy of out patient ticket No.32731 dated 30..04..2004 from Govt. Ophthalmic Hospital, <br /> Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> P2 : Photocopy of glass prescription dated 17..10..2003 for Jishnu Nath.<br /> <br /> III. Opposite party's witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />